Image from Google Jackets

Banks v Kokkinos and another.

Series: Rent Review & Lease Renewal ; (1999) RRLR 108-114(7)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: ChD 16 December 1998. The defendant (K) was tenant of a property with a 15 year lease which was subject to upwards only rent reviews with effect from 24 June 1994 and 1999. In the absence of agreement, the revised rent was to be determined by a valuer nominated by the President of the RICS on the application of the landlord made not more than six months before or at any time after the commencement of the relevant review period. The plaintiff landlord (B) acquired the freehold reversion in December 1996, with no step having been taken to implement the review of rent in June 1994. B proposed a rent of £25,500, however K disagreed. B failed to apply for the appointment of a valuer within the three month period specified. K asserted that time was of the essence in B's right to apply to the RICS for the appointment, and claimed that the initial rent could not now be increased. B disagreed. "Held" time was of the essence and the initial rent was payable for the first review period.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS60808 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 101303-1001

ChD 16 December 1998. The defendant (K) was tenant of a property with a 15 year lease which was subject to upwards only rent reviews with effect from 24 June 1994 and 1999. In the absence of agreement, the revised rent was to be determined by a valuer nominated by the President of the RICS on the application of the landlord made not more than six months before or at any time after the commencement of the relevant review period. The plaintiff landlord (B) acquired the freehold reversion in December 1996, with no step having been taken to implement the review of rent in June 1994. B proposed a rent of £25,500, however K disagreed. B failed to apply for the appointment of a valuer within the three month period specified. K asserted that time was of the essence in B's right to apply to the RICS for the appointment, and claimed that the initial rent could not now be increased. B disagreed. "Held" time was of the essence and the initial rent was payable for the first review period.